4 ms·

I don't understand why the US puts up with this while largely being denied market access to China. In my mind, it would be more symetrical to have applied tari

I don't understand why the US puts up with this while largely being denied market access to China. In my mind, it would be more symetrical to have applied tariffs to brands that aren't incorporated and substantially operating in the US and are imported into the US from China. This would help American businesses by having American consumers buy quality items from US companies, even if a substantial portion of the product was built in China.

swebs 7y ago
So exactly what happened yesterday? https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-to-move-forward-with-china-tariffs-trump-says-11557424081 https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-to-move-forward-with-china-...
- danimal88 7y ago
  Paywalled so can't read the whole thing. In general, my understanding is that it is NOT exactly what happened. We are putting tariffs on ALL IMPORTS from China, whether designed, maintained, operated by a US corp or a Chinese corp. A better policy would have recognized that there is a distinct difference between Chinese and US corps looking to sell into the US market. The simplest example would be anything internet connected product with software. If the design, software, marketing etc. is all largely in the US and just the physical product is manufactured in China, it seems like a reasonable economic policy to say that China can keep the manufacturing business and the US corps can continue to do this - largely because it acknowledges the reality that US manufacturing for high volume/low mix is simply not going to be competitive and if it is, it will only be due to automation. Leaving the manufacturing in place but blocking Chinese market access would impart substantial hardship to Chinese companies who are able to ignore US Trademark, IP, deceitful advertising/low quality (read other threads on this HN post), all the while largely not interrupting US businesses. It would have provided needed leverage while avoiding doing damage to US business and consumers.
analyst74 7y ago
There are many examples where American brands gained or dominated in market share in China. GM sells more cars in China than in US for example.

swebs 7y ago

So exactly what happened yesterday? https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-to-move-forward-with-china-tariffs-trump-says-11557424081 https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-to-move-forward-with-china-...

danimal88 7y ago
Paywalled so can't read the whole thing. In general, my understanding is that it is NOT exactly what happened. We are putting tariffs on ALL IMPORTS from China, whether designed, maintained, operated by a US corp or a Chinese corp. A better policy would have recognized that there is a distinct difference between Chinese and US corps looking to sell into the US market. The simplest example would be anything internet connected product with software. If the design, software, marketing etc. is all largely in the US and just the physical product is manufactured in China, it seems like a reasonable economic policy to say that China can keep the manufacturing business and the US corps can continue to do this - largely because it acknowledges the reality that US manufacturing for high volume/low mix is simply not going to be competitive and if it is, it will only be due to automation. Leaving the manufacturing in place but blocking Chinese market access would impart substantial hardship to Chinese companies who are able to ignore US Trademark, IP, deceitful advertising/low quality (read other threads on this HN post), all the while largely not interrupting US businesses. It would have provided needed leverage while avoiding doing damage to US business and consumers.

analyst74 7y ago

There are many examples where American brands gained or dominated in market share in China. GM sells more cars in China than in US for example.